A.S.No.384 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

A.S.No.384 of 2017

and

C.M.P.No.14372 of 2017

S.Rethinapandian

... Appellant

Vs.

1.Smt.Kamala

2.The State Express Transport Corporation Limited,

Chennai Represented by its Managing Director,

Pallavan Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.

... Respondents

Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, to

allow the appeal by setting aside the Partial decree and judgment dated

31.01.2017 made in O.S.No.2 of 2017 on the file of Family Court at

Karaikal.

For Appellant

: Mr.S.Neducheiyan

For R1

: Mr.S.P.Vijaya Ragavan

For R2

: No Appearance

: Mr.C.S.K.Sathish

[For State Transport Corporation

Trust Fund]

Page 1 of 24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.384 of 2017

J U D G M E N T

The Appeal Suit has been instituted against the judgment and decree

dated 31.01.2017 passed in O.S.No.2 of 2017.

2. The appellant is the 1^st defendant in the original Suit. The 1^st

respondent is the wife of the appellant, who instituted a Suit in O.S.No.38 of

2013 before the District Court at Karaikal, which was transferred to Famil

Court, Karaikal and re-numbered as O.S.No.2 of 2017. The Suit was filed

seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.6000/- from the appellant / husband and

also to pay the arrears of maintenance.

3. The plaintiff has stated that the marriage between the plaintiff and

the 1^st defendant was solemnised on 26.10.1983 at C.V.C. Thirumana

Mandabam, Karaikal. They lived as husband and wife at Poraiyar and from

and out of wedlock between them two children namely Manjula and

Maheswaramoorhty were born. Their marital life went happily. The plaintiff

went to her father’s house for second delivery and thereafter, the 1^st

defendant / husband was not interested to take back the plaintiff and

deserted her. The plaintiff made repeated requests and issued a notice

Page 2 of 24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.384 of 2017

thereafter. The 1^st defendant / husband had developed an illicit intimacy

with a woman and was living a wayward life. The 1^st defendant continued

his illicit relationship with Mariammal of Vizhidiyur with whom he has

been living. From the year 1989 onwards, the 1^st defendant / husband

neglected and also refused to maintain the plaintiff and her children. The

plaintiff is not having any other property or source of income to maintain

herself and children. Even her father was aged about 90 years at the time of

filing of the Suit and she has been working in a Temple as Sweeper and

leading her livelihood. The 1^st defendant was working as a Driver in the

Tamil Nadu State Express Transport Corporation Limited, Chennai and had

received substantial amount as his terminal and pensionary benefits.

However, the 1^st defendant has not paid any maintenance amount to the

plaintiff or to her children. Thus, the plaintiff instituted a Suit for

maintenance.

4. The 1^st defendant filed a written statement denying the plaint

averments. The 1^st defendant had stated that the plaintiff was the wife of the

1^st defendant 24 years back, but she is not the wife now. The plaintiff was

deserted by the 1^st defendant and thereafter, she started living with her

Page 3 of 24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.384 of 2017

parents' at Poovam Village of Kottucherry Commune. The efforts taken by

the defendant to resume the matrimonial home went in vain. The

Community people arranged a meeting for reconciliation between the

spouses. However, the plaintiff refused to attend the meeting. The 1^st

defendant in his written statement had stated that he was willing to resume

the matrimonial home but the plaintiff refused to join with the him. There

was no relationship between the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant for the past

about 24 years. Two children born to the